My Name Is Modesty: A Modesty Blaise Adventure (2004) User Reviews

The reason this film was made

[p-gibbs · 6/10 · 3 January 2007]

If you are a Modesty Blaise fan, you will know if you have watched this film its miles better than the strange sixties one! but it is a rather low budget film, well almost a no budget film in fact.

The problem that Miramax the owners of the rights to make a Modesty Blaise film had was they could not agree on a script for the big budget film version of Modesty and their rights to make a film were about to run out. In order to keep the film rights they had to make a film, and this is it.

In the past such a film would get shown for one night in the middle of nowhere to show it had been made and shown, and then they would bury it in the film company's vaults never to be see again. The only one they wanted you to see was the big budget version they hope to make soon as they had a script they could agree on. However with with DVD rentals and sales, their is alway the chance to make some money on a DVD of the low budget version however little it cost to make (and this one was shot in 18 days with a director hired one week before shooting !!).

However I like it, its not the film of Modesty Blaise I would have expected to see, but it sticks to Modesty's history reasonable well, and for fans the icing on the cake is a 40 minute interview with Peter O'Donnell in the DVDs extras, as well as an annoying one with Quentin Tarantino and his buddy the director at their most infantile. By the way, Quentin Tarantino hopes to direct the big budget version when, and if ever it gets made.

Better than expected

[ingemar-4 · 6/10 · 16 July 2006]

When I started this DVD, I expected little. All I was hoping for was something better than the awful 60's anti-Modesty. And I did get something better, much better! Well, the start wasn't too good. The opening titles are downright bad, a collection of cuts from the movie, feels really cheap. But then it gets much better. We first meet Modesty as a kid, meeting some soldiers in an anonymous war. I feared that this sensitive scene would end by having some enemies showing up for some mandatory action, but that action was fortunately skipped.

The entire movie is based on the shortest MB story of all, "The beginning", which briefly summarizes how Modesty came to be herself, and the movie is very true to the story. The main characters, Lob and Louche, are exactly what they should be. There is some action and violence, but never more than what is called for. It is rather a thriller, using threat rather than action, and it works.

Garvin does not appear, which means that a second movie could feature Modesty meeting him, and their activity in the Network. If that sequel is made, and it is made as good as this, it will be very worthwhile.

Well, is Alexandra Staden a good Modesty? I think so. Although not a perfect lookalike of Holdaway's drawings, she works well as the young Modesty. She is cool, tough and convincing, very far from the blonde bimbo of the 60's movie.

For a low-budget movie, this is quite good. It is far from a top movie, but as an MB fan, the movie is the first real MB movie. Let there be more!

Decent prequel to the comic

[Still_Fluxing · 6/10 · 12 March 2005]

I actually enjoyed the Modesty Blaise adaptation from 1966 more, even though it was extremely campy. The reason spells W.i.l.l.i.e. G.a.r.v.i.n.

This movie takes place before Modesty started her organization "The Net", and thus before she picked Willie off the streets. It offers an interesting tale of her childhood, but a Modesty without Willie is just *wrong*. The dynamic between them has always been one of the most compelling things about the original, and without it this movie isn't as interesting as it could have been. That being said, it's still a decent watch, especially for those who have wondered about Modesty's past.

The casting is alright, but Alaxandra Staden looks too fragile to be entirely believable as Modesty. Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau, however, does a great job as the blood-thirsty Miklos. Lookwise he could have been a young Willie Garvin.

Hopefully Miramax will do a follow-up because Peter O'Donnel's novels and comic-strips is a great source material for a movie script. But next time they've better include Willie.

A disgrace

[kodekon · 3/10 · 5 January 2006]

I have grown up reading Modesty Blaise, both the comics and the books, and she truly is a heroine to me. Although not being a great fan of Quentin Tarantino I anyway was interested to hear a few years back that he was considering making a film of her: could he finally give Modesty a nice big screen treatment she's worthy of? I heard of 'My Name Is Modesty' a few months ago and checked the stars it had been given here, and wasn't too surprised to find out the score was not too high, since beloved characters often have hard time melting the fans' heart if not done exactly right. So I decided not to read any reviews and see the film instead, and well, I just finished watching it, and I'm stunned, and sad, and yeah, pretty furious, too. Sad and furious of giving over an hour of my time seeing something so fabulous as Modesty Blaise-character being turned into a film that has nothing to give to a viewer or a fan.

It seems that almost everything about this film is sub-par and unprofessional, although I must admit seeing some actors in other films earlier where they were fine so I can't blame them. But the screenplay and the directing... my god, why even make this kind of crap with production values slightly bigger than your average TV-film but done much worse? I don't know the background of this film and actually I really don't want to know, but I just can't help wondering that how on earth could Tarantino with a straight face tell that he loves Modesty and then put his name on this? He just lost a huge amount of respect in my eyes. The director was not the right man for this job and I can honestly thank him for ruining my night.

I give this film 3 stars and those stars go to the actors and the technical quality which could've been worse. The other seven stars missing are what this film was not good at. Oh well, hopefully at some point there will be a serious production of The Modesty Blaise Movie that has some other goals than to steal money from the Modesty fans. Although if people like Tarantino are the ones making the decisions I'm not holding my breath.

Bad Casting bad plot another bad Blaise movie

[patriklindstrom · 2/10 · 19 January 2005]

In the Comic, Modesty is strong. Alexandra Staden who plays Modesty Blaise looks more like an anorectic fashion model. She does not either have the moral or personality that Modesty have in the comics. Modesty would never give a woman an advice to show more skin to earn more money. I cannot see any similarities with my comic books with Modesty and this movie. Its like a Mission Impossible movie would be about Ethan Hunt locked in the detention room in high school talking with the janitor about when he went to junior high school and Hunt would have been played by DJ Qualls (in Road Trip). Soo if you are an Modesty fan do not see the movie you will just get angry. If do not know much about the Modesty comics rent an other movie do not wast your time with this one.I cannot understand how Quentin Tarantino can put his name on it. I will ask for a refund at my DVD rent store tomorrow.

Badly miscast.

[jeffrey-anderson · 3/10 · 29 June 2014]

I had a problem as soon as Alexandra Staden appeared on screen. I feel that whoever cast her in the lead role has never read a Modesty Blaise novel. It spoiled the movie for me - I didn't finish watching it. She is the antithesis of the Modesty Blaise character. If she had a full auto pistol in each hand I still couldn't take her as a serious threat to anyone. The character as developed by Peter O'Donnell was a sexy but very fit, active, and martial arts trained woman. A strong woman, tough and resourceful. A woman who could fight a man on a physical basis. Ms Staden looks weak and scrawny, the type of woman a determined five year old could beat into submission. No muscle tone and no athleticism. Possibly as I read so much, my impression regarding series characters become rather indelible.

Unexpectedly good

[Alan-40 · 7/10 · 6 August 2005]

Unfortunately many consumers who write reviews for IMDb equate low budget with not good. Whatever else this movie might need, more budget really isn't part of it. Big sets and lots of special effects would have turned it into another Lara Croft movie. What we have here is a step or two better than that.

The nearly unknown Alexandra Staden is captivating as the enigmatic Modesty, and this is crucial for this movie to work. Her wise little smiles and knowing looks are formidable, and you find yourself wishing that the camera won't leaver her face. It makes it workable that the bad guy Nikolai, played by also little known (in the U.S. at least) Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau might take an unusually cerebral interest in her, something Modesty can exploit. She is able to divert his raping her with just a shove and spitting out "stop wasting my time!" then storming off between his heavily armed yet suddenly diffident henchmen. Making a scene like that plausible doesn't happen by accident.

Probably the biggest problem I have with the rail-thin Staden playing Modesty is it just isn't very believable for her to go hand to hand with an athletic and muscled looking guy like Coaster-Waldau and beat him. She just ain't a Peta Wilson or a pumped-up Hilary Swank type actress who can throw a convincing punch. Coaster-Waldau letting himself be overpowered by Staden looks like he's just roughhousing with his little sister.

Since this is not really an action film, this isn't a big flaw. I just hope they do better on that if and when they make sequels.

Don't bother with this stinker

[patrickodonell00 · 1/10 · 24 May 2005]

Oh my god, what a horrible film. The film has all the right people involved, unfortunately it is not worth watching. I saw it for free at my local library. If I had paid to watch this I would be even more upset. This film is unwatchable. How could Tarintino be involved with such a slow paced, unexciting film. No wonder it didn't get much distribution, every one involved must have been ashamed. I can make a better film with a Dated Camcorder and my Big toe. Its beyond boring, I really hated it. Tarintino just lost some standing in my eyes. This must be some kind of sick joke. Don't Bother with this film. If some one even hints you should watch it, kill them.

The best treatment so far!

[DocS-1 · 7/10 · 31 January 2005]

Rented and watched this short (< 90 minutes) work. It's by far the best treatment Modesty has received on film -- and her creator, Peter O'Donnell, agrees, participating as a "Creative Consultant." The character, and we who love her, are handled with respect. Spiegel's direction is the best he's done to date, and the casting was very well done. Alexandra Staden is almost physically perfect as a match to the original Jim Holdaway illustrations of Modesty. A terrific find by whoever cast her! Raymond Cruz as a young Rafael Garcia was also excellent. I hope that Tarantino & co. will go on to make more in the series -- I'm especially interested to see whom they'd choose to be the incomparable Willie Garvin!

Modesty? You must be joking

[DavidHeyo · 1 March 2004]

I just saw the DVD and ask myself why Quentin Tarantino agreed to have is name mentioned as "Quentin Tarantino presents"? Alexandra Staden is so bad as Modesty Blaise that you spend most of the time wondering why the chief gangster doesn't kill her immediately to make her shut up. And, by the way ,Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, the actor playing the "bad guy" looks too good looking for that part. Never witnessed such a stupid casting. The film is about a hold up in a casino. Hostages are taken and what do we get?... The girl telling the boring story of her life.

how not to make (and see) a movie

[smallbutton-1 · 1/10 · 14 January 2006]

Bad story, acting, timing, directing. Maybe I'm just not in the target public. I started watching this film after i was told that it's directed by somebody else (the rental company doesn't give the original cover and I missed the director's name at the beginning) and I kept hoping that all that I was seeing was a joke, a twist and i'll see later why. Well, I didn't. Some movies ruin a story. I guess it's not the case here. And all the atmosphere is rather medieval and has nothing to do with what happens in Balkans. The worst is the wrong impression that there's a never ending war and people hunt each other like beasts. After a feature like this the next one is always better.

What did people expect from a low-budget "prequel?"

[Elric33239 · 9/10 · 11 July 2008]

This was the Modesty that we didn't know! It was hinted at and summarized in the comic strip for the syndicates to sell to newspapers! Lee and Janet Batchler were true Modesty Blaise fans who were given The Dream Job - tell a prequel story of Modesty that the fans never saw before. In their audio-commentary, they admitted that that they made changes in her origin to make the story run smoother. The "purists" should also note that we really don't know if everything she told Miklos was true because she was "stalling for time." I didn't rent or borrow the DVD like other "reviewers" did, I bought it! And I don't want a refund! I watched it three times and I didn't sleep through it! Great dialog and well-drawn characters that I cared about (even bad guy Miklos) just like in the novels and comic strips! I too can't wait for the next Modesty (and Willie) film,especially if this "prequel" is a sign of what's to come!

Actually not that much action, more of a thriller

[Enchorde · 7/10 · 7 October 2006]

Recap: It's business as usual at Louche's casino in Tanger. The casino is about to close and prepares for a big transaction the next day. The owner Louche and some staff leave for the night, leaving Modesty in charge. Suddenly a troop of armed gangsters storm the casino, shooting wildly. Unknown to Modesty, they have already killed Louche, and are now after the money hidden in the vault. But no one present, and still alive, at the casino knows the code to open the vault. The vault itself is heavily booby trapped with explosives so the assailants can't blow the door as planned. Suddenly Modesty finds herself eye to eye with the gangsters' leader Miklos in a game of roulette with their lives in jeopardy.

Comments: This is a review written with no connection what so ever with other published media about Modesty Blaise, as I have neither seen nor read any of it. The first point I like to make is that this is slightly wrongfully classified. Foremost I thought this was a thriller with a battle of wits between Modesty and Miklos as the main plot. Sure, there are some bursts of action but they are not really an integral or important part of the story.

As already mentioned the main plot and the main suspense-filled scene, is the game between Modesty and Miklos. It's an innovative and intriguing way of revealing the background of a character, and in doing so much of the story takes place outside the casino at a much earlier time. Someone said that it is almost like a pilot for a TV-series, and the feeling is that it might indeed be used as such. But, I felt it was a much better way to introduce a character than many other have done. I was in no way disappointed in the lack of action, instead I enjoyed this game, the history much more than a simple action movie.

I think the two main stars, Alexandra Staden and Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau did very well. Staden especially portrays Modesty very well, and really carries this confident and talented character.

7/10

This is now a movie

[falconandthesnowman · 2/10 · 23 March 2005]

I totally agree: it is a TV pilot! In short this has nothing to do with the Modesty Blaise we know from the comic strips. Expectations was high in these times of comic strip superhero's, being made into high budget action movies, and with the name Tarantion on the cover my appetite was ready to be satisfied with the pleasure of his work. Major mistake, this is not even remotely exciting or interesting. The lesson to be learned from this is whenever Miramax presents a "movie" with the Words: "presented by Quintin Tarantino"- be prepared things are not what they appear to be. What I really would like to know is why Mr. Tarantino let them abuse his good name like this? Is it because he has been promised an opportunity as to redeem him self in the making of the real movie?

What were they thinking about?

[lange-7 · 2/10 · 3 April 2005]

This movie is by all standards awful. The plot is so extremely thin, the actors awful, especially the extremely skinny Modesty Blaise.

The story is told as a series of flashbacks to Modesty' childhood. Growing up in a refugee camp and her escape from it. Now living in Tangeer, Marocco working in a casino. It's boring, poorly acted, poorly told. Don't see it.

********SPOILER*********

Don't know about the writers background, but wtf were they thinking about? Fleeing from Balkan to Marocco? And that old man being an ultra skilled kung-fu, Marshall arts expert, and then his not able to fight off a couple of boys? And really, what are the odds that you can WALK from Balkan to Marocco without any ID. Jeez.

Joke of the Year Award goes to...

[kryxy · 1/10 · 4 August 2005]

I am also one of those who gives comments rarely, in this case it's almost irresistible. Clichés all over, stupid plot, bad acting, horrendous film editing (things just disappear – watch the scene when a Mercedes comes out of the casino driveway, after the thunder the car next to it is gone), all of these put this masterpiece high on my list of "nobody home' films. It's almost unbelievable that names like Miramax and Tarantino got involved in the production of this movie. You may take it also as a big joke, that might make you feel better, specially the scenes from the Balkans, me and my friends bust our guts laughing. "Yu call, I com", says Raphael. Well, Mr. Spiegel, we won't be calling you. And don't you call us either.

I usually never comment movies.

[trevil-2 · 1/10 · 30 March 2005]

...but I gotta say, this is the worst piece of poo I've seen in a very long time, I usually get off on bad movies, but this is horrible, and I really don't think everything is the actors or the directors fault, I think it's been Thoth of as a deadbeat crappy production all the way from the top, with a very strong sense of bullpoo all the way. What I'm saying is that everyone have to work together as a team to be able to create something like this, so in a sense, it's a very successful movie too.. Confused? who me? he? They made the movie to keep the right for modesty, and they rights they will keep.. for what? They cant make another movie, nobody will watch it..

I still wake up screaming at night..

A nice view

[Dohmen · 7/10 · 9 September 2013]

I did not know the comics whatsoever, I watched this because it was a Quentin Tarentino Presents DVD, knowing that not all the QT presents movies are any good.

I watched this film and enjoyed it. The storyline was OK, the conversation between Modesty and Miklos was entertaining. The flashbacks however were a bit messy sometimes and this made them less fun to watch. This is kinda a big deal, because the flashbacks are a big part of the film.

In summary this film did not surprise or disappoint me. It could have been better, but certainly could be worse. Actually, it should have been better, I saw a lot of potential in a cool action film, sadly, this just didn't make it.

If you have enough time, watch it, if not, watch something better.

This film is only an OK attempt - Must try harder!

[Cyclops1i · 3/10 · 11 March 2005]

As another fan of the heroine and of the many action packed stories of friendship and loyalty that Peter O'Donnell created, it is a shame that this third cinematic attempt again falls short of the high level set by O'Donnell's written work. This is surprising, as Quentin Tarrantino appears to have endorsed it (Don't know whether he actually contributed to it's production but it must have only been only moral support as a fan because the story lacked any suspense or good old fashion entertainment). It drifted along from start to end (which is not good). Some of the previous comments had said it captured what O'Donnell had intended and had rated it between 8 to 10. This must have been only comparing with previous awful attempts on film. For me, although the story of Modesty's past was fairly accurate, it was told in a fashion that lacked any soul (or budget! Looked cheap to make). ***SPOILER*** The main part of the re-telling of Modesty's past that rubbed me the wrong way, was of Lob teaching her martial arts!! He was supposed to be frail and an academic who could not fend for himself and had to be protected by an adolescence Modesty. ***SPOILER END*** The film failed to draw you in and make you want to know more about Modesty. It was a film made by the numbers with one or two primary numbers missing. However, as a fan I truly hope that Miramax make another film. There is so much potential to explore in the characters (Modesty, Garvin, Tarrant, & Fraser, as well as colourful villains to hiss at). Fingers crossed for the next instalment, if there is going to be another.

An OK Modesty movie that will do in the meantime....

[kiwilove2006 · 6/10 · 21 December 2010]

I have read all of the Modesty books a long time ago, and liked them better than the Ian Flemming James Bond books. This movie is of course better than the one made in the 60s' - which I saw at that time (I read the books later on).

I did read some of the reviews here, before viewing this fairly recent movie adaption - and I was prepared for a less than stellar movie treatment of Modesty Blaise. However I was pleasantly surprised at how viewable this movie is. I was not expecting a full action movie treatment - for such an action packed character - but when the action sequence did come, it did not disappoint me much.

I thought Alexandra Staden did a reasonable effort at portraying Modesty Blaise - and overall I felt this was a reasonable effort at recreating the Modesty Blaise mystique via the cinema. I do hope that Modesty Blaise will get the full movie series treatment it deserves. I'm sure it can outdo James Bond any day when no expense is spared on it - this smaller scale movie will do in the meantime to show it does have the potential to be much much more. I just hope that a suitable actor will fill Modesty Blaise shoes who is prepared to play the same role time and time again...

Immodestly unwatchable

[MortoCultese · 1/10 · 9 June 2019]

The worst movie I've seen in recent memory. By far.

I quite liked the O'Donnel books, they retain their charm several decades after they were written. And Modesty herself, is sassy, sexy, intuitive and capable.

This movie does not do them any justice. The acting ranges from bad to painful to watch. The direction and editing would have looked cool 25 years earlier, but they are laughable by 2004's standards.

Worst of all, the plot. It mostly takes place over a game of roulette, with flashbacks to tell Modesty's story, parts of which bear an uncanny resemblance to Karate Kid. I'm not joking.

There's a good franchise in the MB books, but this movie is nowhere near the origin story it pretends to be. Don't waste your time. Honest.

Modesty Blaise as she should be.

[mike-bird · 9/10 · 23 July 2004]

I enjoyed this film. It was a joy to see a version so close to the vision of Peter O'Donnell.

A number of people have disliked the film, but it has to be seen in context of the origin story that it is. The film uses flashback to show the young Modesty and the events that shaped her into the woman that she became. Before the Network. Before Willie Garvin.

The pace is a trifle slow, and for my taste not enough tension is developed in the present day scenes. However this is acceptable just to get such a faithful version.

If you like Modesty Blaise, you will enjoy it even with its faults, if you just want an action flick with car chases - forget it.

It has the feeling of being the first of a franchise, but as I have never seen it promoted anywhere, I suspect there will be no more to follow. Sadly.

Small budget but interesting

[dandu172 · 7/10 · 20 August 2005]

I have read modesty Blaise for several years now, collecting numbers of the strip. After the fiasco movie made many years ago based on the first book "Modesty Blaise" I was surprised the result got this good.

What I got was a movie not based on action or violence. The director had focused on history and psychology. How was Modesty created based on the own tale and what parts in her life was affected by her non-childhood. I think this thougths will give a greater understanding to the next (I hope) film. I simply loved the movies old-fashioned style.

However everything wasn't that good, the gambling wasn't that good. almost boring and unreal. The acting could have been improved too. I'm not thinking the bad guy in this movie felt real, the only reason he was there was so Modesty could have someone to tell her story for. Also they could have expanded the movie, showing more about when she builds up "The network" but I'll guess thats for the next movie.

And please forgive me for my bad English

Not a winner

[lastliberal-853-253708 · 4/10 · 14 April 2012]

There was a Modesty Blaise film in the 60s, and Quentin Tarantino produced this low budget version to preserve the rights until he could direct a big budget film.

It stars Alexandra Staden as Modesty. No shame in not knowing who she is, as she has no great credits.

More likely, you will recognize Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau (Nightwatch, "Game of Thrones"), or Raymond Cruz (Training Day, "The Closer"), or even Eugenia Yuan (The Eye 2, 3 Extremes II).

Lots of talking and little action until the very end. Staden is just a bit too skinny to be believable.

You know what they call a lame movie in Paris?

[Torgo_Approves · 4/10 · 28 November 2006]

Me neither, but this flick is unfortunately one of those movies that are too bad to be good and too good to be awful, which makes it utterly pointless and a total waste of time. There's nothing more uninteresting than a mediocre movie, and My Name is Modesty: Whatever the subtitle is takes mediocrity to a new level. It's full of B-actors but isn't any fun whatsoever because it takes itself seriously. It sets itself up as a thriller but then turns into some kind of growing-up drama, flashback style. The beautiful Alexandra Staden, smothered beyond recognition under makeup, more resembles a cast member from Top Model than Modesty Blaise. I'm not one of those die-hard comic book freaks who wants every adaptation of his precious "graphic novels" to be pitch-perfect - in fact I've never even read Modesty Blaise - all I wanted was a decent movie to watch. But this wasn't it. The film feels half-finished, with a weak and very unexciting conclusion to a rather weak plot. It also takes its audience for idiots, explaining every tiny detail of the plot to us and showing flashbacks of things that happened three scenes ago (I guess they think we all have Alzheimers).

Now I love a good B-movie - what's better than just turning your brain off and swallowing the cinematic equivalent of a Calzone? - and "Modesty" is directed by none other than Scott Spiegel, who brought us the wonderful splatter crap flick From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money! I loved From Dusk Till Dawn 2 because it brought everything a bad B-movie should bring to the table - nudity, gore, guns, you name it. "Modesty" is just dull. The flashback concerning Modesty's life isn't interesting. The acting isn't bad enough to be laughed at. In fact, I kinda liked Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau's (hey buddy, pseudonyms are your friends!) performance as the baddie.

So overall it's just lame. Weak. Uninspired. Call it what you will. Don't watch anything because Tarantino presents it, people. This is just a very forgettable, half-hearted thriller, and it never tries to be more than that. Allow me to round off this review with a very lame pun (seriously, even I'm cringing): My Name Is Modesty: A Modesty Waste of Time - 4/10